Mullaly v. Commissioner
This text of 5 T.C. 1376 (Mullaly v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION.
Respondent, on his own initiative, revised petitioner’s net income for the taxable years ended August 31, 1937 and 1938, by disallowing a portion of certain advertising and publicity expenses for those years as abnormal deductions under section 711 (b) (1) (J) (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code.1 This revision in petitioner’s net income for these base period years reduced its excess profits credit in the year 1941 and resulted in the deficiency. It is stipulated that petitioner did not elect to capitalize these expenses under section 733 of the Code.2 Petitioner concedes that if respondent has the authority to take the action complained of, the amounts disallowed are correct. Petitioner challenges respondent’s determination on several grounds. First, petitioner contends that section 711 (b) (1) (J) is a relief provision which only a taxpayer can invoke; that petitioner has not invoked it and, hence, the provision is not applicable here. This contention of petitioner is based on section 711 (b) (1) (K) (ii) of the code.3 Petitioner further contends that, in any event, the increase in advertising and publicity expenses in 1937 was due to an increase in its gross income for that year and that in the taxable year 1938 it was due to a change in the size and condition of petitioner’s business and no adjustment is necessary because the expenses were not abnormal. Respondent agrees that the cited section is a relief provision, but contends that it is for the benefit of both the taxpayer and the Government and that nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code can be found a bar to his authority to make the adjustment in question. In Colson Corporation, 5 T. C. 1035, we decided the identical question here involved in favor of the contention of the taxpayer in that case. We adhere to our decision in that case, and on the authority thereof we sustain petitioner in its first contention hereinabove set forth. It is unnecessary therefore to give consideration to petitioner’s further and alternative contention hereinabove set forth. We hold that there is no deficiency, but in view of the fact that petitioner claims an overpayment,
Decision will be entered wader Rule 50.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 T.C. 1376, 1945 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullaly-v-commissioner-tax-1945.